[arin-ppml] Post-exhaustion IPv4 policy

[Scott Leibrand]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>> The address market strategy might work. Ought to work. But we should
>>> probably make some contingency plans.
>>>       
>> Have you looked at proposal 97, Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests?  I'd
>> be interested in your feedback on whether this would be helpful or not.
>>     
>
> Scott,
>
> It seems like a reasonable place to start. I have two concerns:
>
> 1. If I request a /16 and you tell me you only have a /18, what's to
> stop me from saying "Okay, give me the /18" and then two days later
> saying, "Okay, put me on the wait list for a /16."
>   

The policy attempts to address that, in a deliberately vague statement 
that "Repeated requests, in a manner that would
circumvent 4.1.6, are not allowed."  The idea, of course, is to give 
ARIN staff leeway to use their excellent fraud detection skills, 
combined with operational procedures that can be adjusted as needed.

> 2. How is giving me the /18 fair to the guy who is on the waiting list
> for a /17? There's no guidance in the policy as to how ARIN is
> supposed to build up enough addresses to satisfy that /17 request.
>   

My take on this is similar to what Warren just posted.  Basically, if 
the /17 holder will settle for a /18, he can change his request to be 
for the smaller size, and he'll be in the list before you.  If he wants 
to hold out for that /17 to be returned, he's welcome to.  But more than 
likely, he'll go find his own /17 on the transfer market before that.

> This also doesn't address how ARIN is going to get the addresses to
> fill the waiting list in the first place, but I gather you intend that
> to be a separate policy issue.
>
> #1 is probably not too hard. Just say that so long as anyone is on the
> wait list, 1 year must elapse between requests from any single org for
> IPs. Favor those with patience: a guy on the wait list for 8 months
> when his request is filled waits only 4 more months before he can make
> another request.
>   

I considered that, but I thought it better to leave it up to staff.  If 
it turns out that we need a time limit, we can do that, but then we have 
to define it in advance in policy.  My initial thought was 6 months, but 
perhaps if David's policy advances as modified, 3 months would be better.

-Scott

> No answers jump out at me for #2. FIFO is just as bad or worse.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>